Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Does Britain Face a Permanent Left-Wing Future? Youth No Longer Become Right Wing with Age." video.

  1. Comment Part 3: But things are even worse than that. My central position from Kant’s Schematism, here is that not only the realism of an original sensible conceptual take on the world (McDowell), is correct but that the probability inferential space presupposes the Categorical Metaphysical Model Space: that is necessity is taken as a transcendent instituional and geographical rule a “mythically given” “single” and autonomous metric series. That would mean a transcendent realism is imported in surreptitiously instituional and geographically. But as we know from various economic Crisis and Banking Risks the assumption of a flat space for the probability space is incorrect. It is fudged by assuming differential time and space increments, in which everything else remains constant over a small change. This is neglectful in the very least of the reality of multiple data sets and functions and series all moving at once and as really analytically inseparable non-abstractable policy nexuses. The Right call it an extrinsic anomaly, the Left following Marx call it an intrinsic systemic contradiction manifesting a crisis. But the Data science basis is wrong since necessity cannot be assumed the probability event space does not sum to =1 even for one metric series. This means several of the fundamental axioms of probability collapse. Putting this together In Kantian terms then the apparent mathematical algebraic and geometrical a priori structure (now expressed as set axioms) cannot hold since these (two groups of three) Mathematical Categories are not really synchronically independent of the (two groups of three) dynamic categories. That is, at least here the model metaphysical Categories Actuality Possibility Necessity, cannot be taken as given though closed (=1) probability event spaces. The next step is to move to Bells theorem and its interpretation by van Frassen. Witohut going to vanFrassen’s work on probability and symmetry this discussed briefly and clearly in Roger Scruton’s “Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey” (1994) Chapter 15: Science. The route to Conservatism here then begins from this Critique of the existing data determined rationalism and reason and giving reasons and responsibility in politics and policy and economics. It creates a space for something recognisably Aristotelian via Kant’s dual equivocation of the Model metaphysical Category of Actuality with its Aristotelian meaning as Actuality and Potentiality responsible (see Howard Caygill “A Kant Dictionary” under “Actuality” “Action” and the various dynamic Categories.) This is my move from the problem of system in Habermas and how to get to something recognisably human and responsible that has disappeared from the current political scientific policy reasoning. (see Howard Caygill “A Kant Dictionary” under “Actuality” “Action” and the various dynamic Categories.) There is much more of course and I have been working on this for another go at Owen Jones and the left and will finish it soon and its deals with related but different issues but has the same basis and shape. This might all seem a bit off topic and left field but I have to say I was motivated to get into this originally from trying to respond to Prof. Eric Kaufmann’s discussion of reasoning in liberal economic rationality, that he outlined in his presentation to the New Culture Forum Conference. In this regard I have been working from Hauseman and McPherson “Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy (Second Edition). Just a note this post is not a cut and paste job of other stuff but a newly created specific piece for this discussion. Thank you for the discussion introduction and if I can add more specific comments when I study it more that might be of interest I will.
    3
  2. Comment Part 2. Now, I had abandoned all hope of figuring out some space of reasons and inference here. Then I was working on a Critique of the naturalist justification of “inequality” in the Pareto Distribution discussed by Jorden Peterson. A number of very nice structures emerged from this with much wider scope in Statistics than Pareto. First there is there in statistics and probability theory a pure Intuition (in the Kantian sense of an already ordered data set prior to its conceptualisation as a particular distribution function curve Formulae. This is taken as a ordered manifold prior and it seems independent of the Kantian sense of Understanding as its conceptualisation as a particular function. Only then is the question of the function raised and for me then the central question for conservatism is whether the different possible distribution functions are related as a continuum i.e. as belonging as particular cases to one Group which, in the probability and statistics business, they call a family. This it turns out is a very unclear area and the proofs of the4 different functional equations seems to be deferred by all the literature to the too difficult to understand box which is odd since they claim to be doing advanced mathematics anyway, what this could possibly mean! It seems that the choice of a distribution function for the data is purely arbitrary even subjective (best fit heuristic stuff). The constraints are the separate data manifold ordering and the application of a Principle of Maximum Entropy. The first for me is problematic since, on my reading of Kant, the faculty of Sensibility and its ordering of the manifold cannot be an independent structure or prior to the Faculty of the Understanding (rules and functions and concepts). This position is viewed as a claim that the faculty of intuition alone does not deal with the charge of idealism, there is no pre-conceptual realism in the Sensibility alone (I think Dieter Hendrich first formulated this view). The question of a Principle of Maximum Entropy I take to mean that since the Statistics finds its foundations in probability theory and its Axioms(?) it takes as its starting point a non-frequency non-objective view. That is it must begin with an actual content, its cannot depart from a position before an event as such has happened. Its begins in an original difference and prejudice a subjective bias (this later became the Baysian consensus). Here objectivity is now understood as long run equilibrium of outcomes, but you cannot place infinity as a divider and so it is radically idealist even though it must being with an original sensible take on the world as real. Here then the Understanding as inference and probability (Sellars McDowell) cannot be independent of an original actual take on the world. In data collection and analysis this means all population sampling begins with a recognisably biased small sample of the population. The application of Maximum Entropy means to prevent the surreptitious extension of the original small sample to the whole population. Clearly in modern politics and law, through evidence and data based policy justification this Principle is not just omitted but its opposite the extensions to the population of a selected sample, say risk and crime, has become a norm of praxis and techne particularly by the left. Its easy to explain since in real politics the bottom line is policy is to meet the demands and self interest of a selected and identified voting base. I think this might be why Karl Popper called this statistical foundation a simulacra not a science, he maintained a kind of reverence for nature as law and frequentist objective probability, even with all the paradoxes they discovered with multiple data sets over one population. That for this politically subjection of data biasing. I mean the probability and data selection and its scientific reasoning and justification, its legitimacy, looks very much like the psyudo rational sub-justifier for an already desired policy. Like they have the policy and then this pseudo science justifies it post facto.
    2
  3. Comment Part 1/3:I received the message of this Demographic "Reality" for the future destiny of Conservatism as its inevitable End, as Christmas Day present posting by Owen Jones. Happy Christmas to me! Luckily i didn't open my "Gift" it till Boxing Day, but it does look like the future is Labour, from his Demographic graphs. Particularly with respect to the New Millennials and Gen x in the US and the UK who have remained left unlike the previous generations who probably upon getting their own home aligned their self interest or Wisdom in judgement from being left to becoming conservative. i hastily constructed a return present by drawing on Einstein's Covariant and Contravariant Tensor notation to problematise the simple connection between the US and UK in terms of (symmetry conditions presumed) the transformation from one "Place" to another and from one Temporality to another. My point was not that the transformation comparison was too contextually indexed to make the data comparable across s Space and Time, but rather that the single "surface" data metric hides another metric below it that is both domestically contravariant to it, e.g. the reactive or negating younger subcultural generation), but internationally covariant, e.g. that new immigrants can often align their political orientation in relation to their country of origin. This was really meant as an Unjust Present revenge Troll Return because I didn't expect them to understand it. But I day later they made their Tensor Fields informed response. I have a degree in Physics and Maths and so that they could do that in one day over Christmas was almost even scarier than the Demographic point. As i recall i used some illustrations drawing on the Tom Hanks movies Cast Away and Apollo 13. They are assuming that when you send a steel bar by FedEx that the bar will retain its direction of orientation during the journey that it is attached to a gyroscope a Gimble. But rather if there are two steel bars one sent the other staying at home that they are connected in orientation either covalently or contravariently like by some kind of radio connected servo systems on each. I had watched the movies over Christmas. I referenced my source Ryuzo Sato and Rama V. Ramachandran "Conservation Laws and Symmetry: Applications to Economics and Finance". But that didn't seem to bother them either. One way I was thinking about this is that the degrees of freedom within the Conceptual metric for one data set is constrained in a way that the "Real" world is not, that there are genuinely more degrees of freedom than the symmetry conditions for data can allow as a conditions of well formed data sets (i didn't at this point know these are data axioms for probability data sets). What i didn't want of course was to just do a negative claim that its contextually complex, and so undermine the other Categorical Group relation axioms necessary for index and identity and reflexivity and just then sceptically ignore the data. I wanted to try and show relations between public and private public domestic and domestic and foreign, that are not Universally and Absolutely normalised by trans-State International law as Transcendent Rights over persons (the problem of Positive and negative freedom and right, between say Locke on private property, Rawls “Justice of Peoples”, and what I thought was an “unsaid” but “implicit International orientation to Justice” from both the Capitalist Right and the Social Justice Left. I have recently discovered an influential paper explicitly on this position: Peter Singer’s “Famine Aid Obligation Paper” from 1972. I was lucky to find a debate just after Chritsmas between Paul Boghosian and Carl Benjamin in which Habermas was discussed and it seems something similar to the position I am sketching here is in Habermass expressed as different levels that relate to each other and effect each other during changes as they belong to a system and so one dimension of action concentration can create a Legitimacy Crisis emerging in another. One example I have found is in the discussions this week between Mary Harrington and Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster (Triggernometry) and on Sunday with Peter Whittle (NCF self reference without axioms!). Harrington’s position is somewhat closer in orientation to the one I am trying to present.
    1
  4. Owen Jones's discussion is on "This Should Terrify the Tories" with the demographic data and graphs. the argument is for covariance of Space and Time i used an example of comparing New York and London to maybe show there was no homogeneity of space ant Time and its sample reflects not US and the UK and subcultures over temporality, but is skewed to more metropolitan/cosmopolitan sample. I have just reviewed this Christmas posting and its funny because it had one of those Permeable adverts, which was for the new stage version of "Phantom of the Opera"! There's hope! Just make sure its not going the way of that 70's subcultural classic "The Phantom of Paradise" for those from my own baby boomer generation, who remember it.
    1
  5. Comment addition (Part 4) Owen Jones's discussion i mentioned in my Comment Part 1, is on "This Should Terrify the Tories" with the demographic data and graphs. the argument is for covariance of Space and Time i used an example of comparing New York and London to maybe show there was no homogeneity of space ant Time and its sample reflects not US and the UK and subcultures but is skewed to more metropolitan/cosmopolitan sample. I have just reviewed this Christmas posting and its funny because its had one of those Permeable adverts, which was for the new stage version of "Phantom of the Opera"! There's hope! Just make sure its not going the way of that 70's subcultural movie classic "The Phantom of Paradise" for those from my own baby boomer generation, who remember it.
    1